4 ms·

Last living signer of Canadian constitutional charter sues gvt over Covid bans

25 points by Radim 5y ago

sudosysgen 5y ago
It has been previously found constitutional in Canada to force people to be vaccinate (as in, with force). This won't do anything. Also, the Canadian constitution is a bit more of a suggestion than others.
- rasz 5y ago
  Forced sterilization and kidnapping children was also seen as fully legal. Contrary to wikipedia article stating this was repealed in 1973 recent senate committee https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-sterilization-senate-report/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-steriliz... found otherwise: >Most of the women interviewed for the report were coercively sterilized between 2005 and 2010. The committee says it is aware of a case of forced sterilization as recent as in 2019.
peteradio 5y ago
The court will appoint him expert witness at his own trial or will he have to recuse due to conflict of interest? This is kind of wild times.
- jdsully 5y ago
  The Canadian court subscribes to the living tree doctrine, so it doesn't really matter what his thoughts were at the time of signing.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Interesting, so are judges elected in Canada or appointed?
    - scj 5y ago
      Appointed by the Federal Government.
      - peteradio 5y ago
        Generally long serving I guess? In the U.S. its mixed and there is worry what impact politics plays when they've got to get out the vote.
  - scj 5y ago
    Chretien was instrumental in the authorship of the Charter, signed the Proclamation of it alongside QE2, and is still alive. The website's way of phrasing that is misleading, even if partially true. And to further illustrate your point... The greatest authority on post-1982 Constitutionalism in Canada wasn't a politician, but a legal scholar, Peter Hogg. Sadly, he died in 2020.
    - peteradio 5y ago
      Will Chretien speak with press or appear before govt to discuss the matter? Is there a sense which way the courts view it? How is the charter viewed, it's relatively new?
      - scj 5y ago
        IANAL, I'm pretty sure the only question that matters is if Section 1 of the Charter [0] is sufficient to meet the government's goals. If not, Section 33 certainly is. Since 1986, the Oakes test has become the way to determine Section 1's applicability. The former legislators thoughts and experiences of 1981/1982 are simply irrelevant in our legal system [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine
        peteradio 5y ago
        > the infringement can be "demonstrably justified" I wonder how this will be framed.
Radim 5y ago
Here Mr. Peckford discusses his motivation for the lawsuit, as well as its ramifications for the Canadian parliamentary process, in long form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdhFuMDLBDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdhFuMDLBDM
pcdoodle 5y ago
FREE CANADA!

25 points by Radim 5y ago

It has been previously found constitutional in Canada to force people to be vaccinate (as in, with force). This won't do anything. Also, the Canadian constitution is a bit more of a suggestion than others.

rasz 5y ago
Forced sterilization and kidnapping children was also seen as fully legal. Contrary to wikipedia article stating this was repealed in 1973 recent senate committee https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-sterilization-senate-report/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-steriliz... found otherwise: >Most of the women interviewed for the report were coercively sterilized between 2005 and 2010. The committee says it is aware of a case of forced sterilization as recent as in 2019.

peteradio 5y ago

The court will appoint him expert witness at his own trial or will he have to recuse due to conflict of interest? This is kind of wild times.

jdsully 5y ago
The Canadian court subscribes to the living tree doctrine, so it doesn't really matter what his thoughts were at the time of signing.
- peteradio 5y ago
  Interesting, so are judges elected in Canada or appointed?
  - scj 5y ago
    Appointed by the Federal Government.
    - peteradio 5y ago
      Generally long serving I guess? In the U.S. its mixed and there is worry what impact politics plays when they've got to get out the vote.
- scj 5y ago
  Chretien was instrumental in the authorship of the Charter, signed the Proclamation of it alongside QE2, and is still alive. The website's way of phrasing that is misleading, even if partially true. And to further illustrate your point... The greatest authority on post-1982 Constitutionalism in Canada wasn't a politician, but a legal scholar, Peter Hogg. Sadly, he died in 2020.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Will Chretien speak with press or appear before govt to discuss the matter? Is there a sense which way the courts view it? How is the charter viewed, it's relatively new?
    - scj 5y ago
      IANAL, I'm pretty sure the only question that matters is if Section 1 of the Charter [0] is sufficient to meet the government's goals. If not, Section 33 certainly is. Since 1986, the Oakes test has become the way to determine Section 1's applicability. The former legislators thoughts and experiences of 1981/1982 are simply irrelevant in our legal system [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine
      - peteradio 5y ago
        > the infringement can be "demonstrably justified" I wonder how this will be framed.

Radim 5y ago

Here Mr. Peckford discusses his motivation for the lawsuit, as well as its ramifications for the Canadian parliamentary process, in long form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdhFuMDLBDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdhFuMDLBDM

pcdoodle 5y ago

FREE CANADA!